Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs) in ordnance fuze and ignition systems have well-defined design and verification requirements based on U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Safety Review Board guidelines and military standards. However, there are few established safety design and verification requirements for PLDs used in non-fuze safety-significant applications. The primary objective of this paper is to (1) establish a process that assures that PLDs in products and systems are developed and tested to a level of rigor commensurate with the safety risk of the specified application, including fuze and non-fuze safety systems, and (2) to comply with recent guidance from DoD Software System Safety Technical Review Panels on firmware and programmable logic safety assurance. The paper’s secondary objective is to make the PLD safety process applicable to non-DoD and commercial programs such as autonomous vehicles, aerospace and energy systems. To meet this objective, this document incorporates best practices of NASA, commercial aviation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and from international programmable electronic functional safety standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it